If Pete Goes, So Does Shoeless Joe

by user Alanschech

We have all been there with the age old debate, does Pete Rose belong in the Hall of Fame? It is probably the most debated topic in all of baseball. Opinions run strong and passionate on this. Personally, I feel that Pete Rose does not belong in the Hall of Fame. Gambling draws question to the integrity of the sport, and I believe it shines on everything he did, even though the gambling occurred as a manager. However, I do see the other side, where he could go in as a player because of all his wonderful accomplishments. My point is this, if we let Pete Rose in the Hall of Fame, we need to let Shoeless Joe Jackson as well.

My reasoning is this, if we are going to let Pete Rose in, who there actually is evidence of wrongdoing, we need to let Joe in as well, because there is no evidence of wrongdoing. In that 1919 World Series, Joe Jackson hit .375, and hit the Sox only homer of the series. He played immaculate defense, never committing an error. Even though he took money, there is not a shred of evidence that he was an active participant in the plot to throw the series. Furthermore, Pete Rose has a jail sentence, and no member of the Black Sox was ever convicted in a court of law.

Let Pete Rose in the Hall if you must, but let Joe Jackon in too.

Date

Fri 06/09/06, 8:38 pm EST

DNLLegend

1250 days ago

Score 2

There is plenty of evidence that Jackson did some wrong, such as allowing a lot of triples over the course of the series. But even putting that aside, I think you're missing one big point: Rose bet on his team, while Jackson (allegedly) bet against himself. It's easy to make the case for allowing Rose in while keeping Jackson out, based solely on that distinction.

Permalink | Reply

ChristofMVP

1250 days ago

Score -1

Shoeless Joe should be let in. His problem was guilt by association. But Rose, he broke the rules of baseball. Then he lied about it. When he finally admitted he lied and broke the law, he came across as insincere.

Permalink | Reply

EnyboDiv-I Stud

1250 days ago

Score 0

They should both be kept out. They both admitted to wrong-doing. With Jackson, he did hit 375 but he also played horrible in the games the Sox lost. Excluding game 4 (I think), in all the games they lost he hit 3 for 17. Could just be coincidence though.

Permalink | Reply

MetsJetsDevilsDraft Pick

1249 days ago

Score 1

This is abdurd. The one thing that people always fail to realize is that Rose is not geing to go into the Hall as a manager. He was not a good one. But what he did after playing should have no bearing on what he did as a player. Pete Rose earned every stat he ever accumulated. Those are clearly hall of fame stats. If you want to keep him out because he is a liar and a son of a bitch, so be it. However, there are a lot of players in the Hall who are liars and son of bitches, so unless you want to kick them out too, recognize the hypocricy. Likewise, if you want to argue that what he did hurt the "integrity" of the game, then I say that you have to kick everyone out of the Hall of fame who played before integration because there is no "integrity" in statistics gained when half the best players were excluded from the league.

Permalink | Reply

The sharkDraft Pick

1249 days ago

Score 0

Good point MJD - I believe Rose belongs in solely on his achievements as a player. His stats are phenomenal and his intensity as a player has arguably never been matched. No one I know would argue that Pete Rose "the manager" be eleted to the Hall. But hear this - If Rose is not allowed in, there is no way in Hell that Barry Bonds belongs. Period. I'll take that to the grave.

Permalink | Reply